Apple Music Signs New Multiyear Deals With World's Largest Record Labels

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
48,663
10,083



Apple Music has secured new deals for songs from major record labels that include Universal Music, Sony Music, and Warner Music, reports Financial Times.


The licensing deals, which have been signed "in recent months," will allow for music from popular artists like Taylor Swift, Lizzo, Adele, and others to continue to be streamed on the Apple Music service.

There are no terms in the deals for bundling Apple Music with Apple TV+, so despite rumors that Apple is working on bundling its subscription services, such a bundle does not appear to be in the works at this time.

Apple revisits deals with major record labels every few years to determine royalty rates and renew rights to songs. Apple has inked multiyear deals at this time, but Apple Music competitor Spotify is said to be having a harder time.

Spotify has been in licensing talks with Universal Music and Warner Music for approximately a year and the record labels have been extending existing agreements on a month by month basis as they work to agree on new terms.

As of last summer, Apple Music had 60 million paid subscribers. Apple hasn't released updated data since then, but Spotify in October said that it had 113 million paying subscribers.

Article Link: Apple Music Signs New Multiyear Deals With World's Largest Record Labels
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,326
13,683
In between a rock and a hard place
[high fives, fist bumps, hugs, and inappropriate groping]
"We 'bout to get paaaaaaaaidddda!!!!!!!!" - Labels
[lights cigars with hundys]

"They 'bout to get paid... more" - some artists
[continues sweeping and moping cigar and money ash off floor]
[steals Swarovski crystal ashtray to pawn for food]
 
  • Like
Reactions: a104375

happyprozak

macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2008
119
141
Isn't that between the labels and the artists?

If artists aren't getting enough money... I'd think it would be the labels' fault (Universal, Sony, Warner)... not the distribution mechanism (streaming services, record stores, etc)
I would be interested to hear a response to this from someone who knows the answer. At least in the media, streaming companies are criticized for how much money is paid to artists, making it seem as if streaming companies like Spotify and Apple are at fault for the amounts artists receive.
 

gsmornot

macrumors 68040
Sep 29, 2014
3,242
2,793
Streaming was the answer to theft. People are more likely to contribute revenue if it's affordable. Like it or not, the money streaming does pay is better than the alternative.
 

H3LL5P4WN

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,579
2,865
Pittsburgh PA
Isn't that between the labels and the artists?

If artists aren't getting enough money... I'd think it would be the labels' fault (Universal, Sony, Warner)... not the distribution mechanism (streaming services, record stores, etc)
In the end, you're right. However, if the music is only earning a thousandth of a dollar a stream, you can't exactly pay a band a dollar every time.

I would be interested to hear a response to this from someone who knows the answer. At least in the media, streaming companies are criticized for how much money is paid to artists, making it seem as if streaming companies like Spotify and Apple are at fault for the amounts artists receive.
I wish I could; my contacts end at the artists. I don't know any label execs (I don't count band-owned labels for this).
 

Michael Scrip

macrumors 603
Mar 4, 2011
5,707
5,014
NC
I would be interested to hear a response to this from someone who knows the answer. At least in the media, streaming companies are criticized for how much money is paid to artists, making it seem as if streaming companies like Spotify and Apple are at fault for the amounts artists receive.
All I know is this... the music industry has never been fair to the artist. There are too many fingers in the pie.

In the old days... artists would be lucky to make $1 for each $16 CD sold. The other $15 went to labels, producers, songwriters, distributors, manufacturing, retailers, etc.

The artists were getting screwed long before we had MP3s and streaming.

I'm assuming it's the same today... where the artist still only gets a tiny portion.

We know Apple and Spotify pay royalties for every song streamed. But I'm guessing it then gets split among of those entities listed above.

I, too, would love to know the intricacies of how this all works.
 

H3LL5P4WN

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,579
2,865
Pittsburgh PA
In the old days... artists would be lucky to make $1 for each $16 CD sold.
That's almost Metallica's record deal, either leading up to, or because of, the Black Album. Each member got $1 per album sold.

$1 per CD to the artist is pretty much unheard of.
- - Post merged: - -

There was no mention about that in the story up above.
Thanks. It's paywalled, so I couldn't look myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip

asharpgclef

macrumors newbie
Mar 17, 2014
6
0
Maybe Apple Music will now add a layer to compete with the higher streaming service competition, Amazon Music Unlimited HD, Qobuz, Deezer HiFi...or they'll wait until Spotify does it, forcing their hand. C'mon Apple, do it first!
 

mdriftmeyer

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2004
3,205
869
Pacific Northwest
That's almost Metallica's record deal, either leading up to, or because of, the Black Album. Each member got $1 per album sold.

$1 per CD to the artist is pretty much unheard of.
- - Post merged: - -



Thanks. It's paywalled, so I couldn't look myself.
Or you can be like Gaga and stream billions of copies for just one song alone and make millions. Independent artists like Gaga have profit sharing relationships with their labels, Interscope Records for her.
 

ksec

macrumors 65816
Dec 23, 2015
1,273
1,272
All I know is this... the music industry has never been fair to the artist. There are too many fingers in the pie.

In the old days... artists would be lucky to make $1 for each $16 CD sold. The other $15 went to labels, producers, songwriters, distributors, manufacturing, retailers, etc.

The artists were getting screwed long before we had MP3s and streaming.

I'm assuming it's the same today... where the artist still only gets a tiny portion.

We know Apple and Spotify pay royalties for every song streamed. But I'm guessing it then gets split among of those entities listed above.

I, too, would love to know the intricacies of how this all works.
Let's be fair. It would have been the same with nearly all products. $16 CD would have $8 going to retailers. Using the Final Value of the good sold does not accurately reflect the big picture. Retailer have their expenses, such as rent, promotion, loses, staff etc.

So say out of $8, $0.8 went to the artist. That 10%. Which isn't bad at all. Song Writer, Composer, Labels, Distribution, Marketing, Promotion. In the old days it was lots of TV ads, paying for radio or other popular slots. ( It is called pop music for a reason ). You also have a whole team of people just to look after the popular artist.

I dont see how they are getting screwed at all. Music is a tough business. Or it is more accurate to say everyone in the chain is getting screwed except the labels. Which acts more like the Landlord in the industry. i.e Rent Seeking. And in the case of popular artist. The labels. actually have very little leverages against them.
 

H3LL5P4WN

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,579
2,865
Pittsburgh PA
Or you can be like Gaga and stream billions of copies for just one song alone and make millions. Independent artists like Gaga have profit sharing relationships with their labels, Interscope Records for her.
How exactly are you independent if you have a major label, such as Interscope?
 

mikzn

macrumors 68000
Sep 2, 2013
1,926
1,268
Vancouver
Translation: be prepared for subscription price increase.
Could be ? - but even at the present price not good value - IMHO

I switched to Spotify about 8 months ago and wow! - way more selection and a huge library of artists / albums / genres - great access across iPhone and iPad etc

I have a huge library purchased music - CD's and even vinyl ripped and stored in iTunes / Music - but Spotify has almost everything in my library - on demand - and easy to access and share with others

I think Apple is losing this race to Spotify
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephAW

Abazigal

macrumors G5
Jul 18, 2011
12,793
10,826
Singapore
Could be ? - but even at the present price not good value - IMHO

I switched to Spotify about 8 months ago and wow! - way more selection and a huge library of artists / albums / genres - great access across iPhone and iPad etc

I have a huge library purchased music - CD's and even vinyl ripped and stored in iTunes / Music - but Spotify has almost everything in my library - on demand - and easy to access and share with others

I think Apple is losing this race to Spotify
I guess it depends on how you define “race”.

If you mean in terms of subscriber numbers, Spotify will likely always have the lead due to them being available on more platforms. Apple Music really only makes sense if you are already deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem (or in the very least, currently using an iPhone).

But then again, android has a larger market share than iOS, but brings in less money overall.

Which brings me to the main point - my observation is that Apple Music is enjoying success in regions with higher iPhone usage rates, which incidentally happen to be more developed / wealthy countries like the US. This is where customers are able and willing to pay the full subscription fee for said service.

Conversely, Spotify seems to be making headway in developing regions with lower iPhone market share. Here, Spotify has to charge them heavily discounted rates because their user base simply lacks the purchasing power to pay the full price.

It’s the same story playing out all over again. Apple Music doesn’t need to match Spotify in subscriber numbers in order to succeed. Apple has already won where it counts, by stealing Spotify’s best customers. Apple also doesn’t have a free tier, which is actually costing Spotify money. Lastly, Apple Music serves double duty to further entrench users in their ecosystem and help sell additional hardware like the HomePod.

In contrast, Spotify’s main challenge will forever be to (finally) turn a profit. Pivoting to podcasts has helped stem their losses some (by basically getting subscribers to listen to less music), but I am not sure how the labels will take to this.

Not trying to knock the advantages that Spotify does have over Apple Music, but I think you will find that they may end up mattering a lot less to users than you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikzn

techfreak23

macrumors 6502
Sep 8, 2013
263
331
$1 per CD to the artist is pretty much unheard of.
- - Post merged: - -



Thanks. It's paywalled, so I couldn't look myself.
Theres a great Siri Shortcut that gets you around the paywall...

E35BFE82-F383-4098-B5E5-81184712AD87.png




Also, Apple might get more subscribers like myself if they would finally release a Connect-like feature. It blows my mind that Apple doesn’t have feature like this... you would think they could leverage AirPlay for this... if they added a feature like that, I would consider switching.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: H3LL5P4WN

Matrix1776

macrumors newbie
Jan 28, 2020
15
3
I would LOVE to have Apple, I'm in the entire Ecosystem. That said, not subscribing until it's lossless like Tidal or Amazon Music HD. I need lossless for my home audio setup (above >$20K). I'm perhaps the minority, but Apple does cater to artists, and a more "high-end" crowd of folk. I would assume most are at least using speakers such as KEF LS50's, which are $1K and need lossless just the same. For Airpods or Beats, compressed is just fine.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.